Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 19 Jun 1991

Vol. 409 No. 10

Agriculture and Food and Industry and Commerce Matters.

Mr. Sheehan

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I wish to thank you for giving me the opportunity to raise these very important points relating to the agricultural community. I wish to ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food the reason the number of dairy cows eligible to qualify for headage payments is confined to ten while all other EC countries pay headage payments on 20 dairy cows per herd.

For some unknown reason a very low number per herd qualify for headage payments. Indeed, I need not remind my constituency colleague, Deputy Walsh, Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, that in our constituency of South-West Cork farmers are completely dismayed at the Government's lack of attention to this very important matter. I fail to see how the Minister cannot agree here tonight to increase the number of dairy cows eligible to qualify for headage payments from ten to 20 per head and I appeal to him to do so, in view of the crisis in agriculture at present.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Walsh)

By and large disadvantaged areas grants in Ireland are paid as an income supplement to farmers particularly in the poorer areas. Dairy farmers happen to be one of the most well off sections of the agricultural community and it was decided some years ago by our predecessors in the Department of Agriculture and Food that given the prosperity of dairy farmers and the scarcity of financial resources, payment on up to ten dairy cows represented a fair degree of compensation to dairy farmers particularly when one remembers that cattle other than dairy cows — in fact quadrupeds of every kind, sheep, goats, equines — are also eligible for grant aid.

Mr. Sheehan

Goats, rabbits?

Mr. Walsh

Connemara ponies are also eligible. The present rate of suckler cow payment is set at £52.43 by the European Community and it is not my prerogative to increase that premium rate. I might mention, indeed, that this special high rate of premium applies only in Ireland and Greece because of the special circumstances in our two agricultural economies.

Mr. Sheehan

I would like also to ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food to consider increasing the present rate of suckler cow payments. It is well known that if the suckler cow payment was increased from £70 to £88 for the first 30 such cows in each herd it would have a tremendous effect on the farmer's income.

There is a tremendous variation in the rate of headage payments throughout the EC. Ireland enjoys the highest rate of refund of headage payments, at 65 per cent while other countries get a refund payment of as low as 25 per cent. In other words, for every pound paid by the Irish Government in headage payments, 65p is recouped from Brussels. I cannot see why the Minister cannot consider increasing the suckler cow grant from the miserable amount of £70 to at least £88, particularly in view of the depressed prices in the cattle marts today. The Minister knows there is growing need for this increase to be paid immediately to suckler cow farmers.

Mr. Walsh

I am as concerned about this matter as my constituency colleague but I am precluded, because it is an EC scheme, from altering the rate of payment. I will take into account the Deputy's strong representations and take up the matter with the European Community.

Mr. Sheehan

I want to ask the Minister to consider increasing the sheep headage payment from £9.50 to £15 per ewe, at a maximum of 200 ewes, to compensate sheep farmers for the collapse of sheep and lamb prices. It is widely rumoured that the Minister proposes to increase sheep headage grants by a miserable 50p per ewe for the first 150 ewes. What a miserable offer to sheep farmers whose backs are completely to the wall because of the collapse of lamb prices. It is extremely serious that the Minister is considering such a meagre increase. The rate which should be paid is £15 per ewe on the first 200 ewes.

It is also rumoured that the Department are to pay an increase of £3.50 for the next 50 ewes in excess of 150. In other words, the man who can keep 200 ewes will get an increase of £250 for his flock, while the farmer who can keep only 150 ewes will get a miserable increase of £75. That is not the correct way to keep our sheep industry going. The small man must be protected as well as the large sheep rancher. This Government have failed to give anything towards reviving the incomes of the most needy group of Irish farmers. The small farmer is completely penalised and I would ask the Minister to give an undertaking to pay a decent increase in sheep headage by giving £15 per ewe for the first 200 ewes.

Mr. Walsh

The EC ewe premium scheme is designed to compensate for lower sheep meat prices in Ireland. Therefore the lower the price goes the higher the premium will become. Payment rates under the disadvantaged areas scheme will increase this year and I shall bear Deputy Sheehan's representations in mind, as well as the overall economic position in agriculture particularly. When deciding on the increase I will have particular regard to the income position of sheep farmers. However, there is a difficulty in that it would be unrealistic to give an unbalanced increase to sheep farmers since mixed farmers and others keeping cattle, equines, goats and various other recipients of headage payments will also get some increase.

There is an overall increase of £12 million, a considerable amount. If I were to take up Deputy Sheehan's suggestion that would use up £11.7 million, leaving only £300,000 for all the other categories of farmers. I do not believe farmers would agree with that type of one-sided approach. There will be a very substantial increase overall in headage payments. That should satisfy Deputy Sheehan who is representing a fair cross-section of farmers.

Mr. Sheehan

I hope it will be better than 50p per head, which would not buy a bar of chocolate for a child.

Mr. Hogan

I thank you for the opportunity to raise with the Minister for Agriculture and Food the question of the appeals system in respect of the disadvantaged areas scheme. There is great frustration regarding the anomalies in the earlier submission made by the Government to the EC in respect of the disadvantaged areas scheme. Undoubtedly the survey introduced by the Minister and carried out over the last couple of years has been a considerable sham and a great disappointment to the vast majority of farmers. It is nothing short of disgraceful and unfair in the extreme. I call on the Minister to outline the full details of the appeals mechanism. Advertisements have been placed in the media in recent days to highlight how farmers can avail of the appeals mechanism. I insist that every farm must be surveyed properly for the appeal and fairness must be restored to the scheme.

Fine Gael believe that because of our peripheral location it is in the interests of agriculture that the entire country should be declared disadvantaged. We are getting 65 per cent of the finances entailed in this scheme from the EC. It is appropriate that the appeals mechanism should take account of the CAP and GATT negotiations and we should insist on a greater allocation of agricultural land to the scheme. There is a precedent in Luxembourg which has higher quality land, yet 100 per cent of that country is disadvantaged. I see no reason why similar concessions could not be given in respect of a vital national interest like agriculture in Ireland.

Mr. Walsh

There has been much comment about disadvantaged areas and the increase effected recently. A total of two million acres were designated as disadvantaged in the increased areas. That compares very favourably with the increase of 400,000 acres following the 1985 review. In addition there is the appeals panel. I recognise that there are some anomalies which must be addressed and sorted out in a positive way following this objective and independent review by the Commission.

The appeals panel is under the chairmanship of Professor Sheehy of UCD and they had their first meeting on 10 June. They agreed detailed arrangements for the lodgment of formal appeals in relation to areas not included in the list of new areas covered by the proposed extension of the disadvantaged areas. Groups of farmers are requested to fill in application forms which have already been sent to the farming organisations and to Teagasc. This followed an advertisement which appeared in the national newspapers on 18 June and which will appear in the local newspapers and the farming publications in the next few days.

Those forms should then be completed with the assistance of the Teagasc personnel in the various areas if that is required, and returned by registered post, in case there is any dispute, to the Secretary, Disadvantaged Areas Appeals Panel, Department of Agriculture and Food, Kildare Street, Dublin 2. The forms should be submitted by the secretary of groups or some spokesperson for groups in a particular area. They should be completed, and there will be no requirement for any additional or supporting documentation.

I want to assure Deputy Hogan that there will be a 100 per cent survey of the areas. Perhaps one of the reasons for some anomalies was the fact that only a spot check or hit and miss type of survey was carried out because of the large area that had to be surveyed in the previous review. Marginal areas will get the full benefit of an independent objective appeals commission with a 100 per cent survey, and it will be in the interest of farmers in those marginal areas who are aggrieved to set up groups, appoint spokespersons and get the full benefit of this review.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The House will now hear a two minute statement from Deputy Philip Hogan on a matter appropriate to a punctual and patient Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Hogan

I thank you, Sir, for the opportunity to raise this important matter with the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The 1927 Act empowers the ESB to trade in hire purchase electrical goods retailing, and ever since the development of the independent sector the ESB's participation in appliance retailing has been seen as unfair. The trades association themselves on a number of occasions have been in contact with the Minister for Industry and Commerce and have met him on a number of occasions to highlight this matter.

It is worth reminding ourselves that there has been an enormous increase in the retailing that has taken place through ESB shops in recent years. This has been largely assisted by the fact that much of the retailing that takes place normally through private business is now being done through ESB retailing in view of the facility to allow payments for these commodities through the billing system. In my opinion and in the opinion of the Director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Trade this is seen to be unfair.

On 8 May 1990 the director accepted a delegation and submission from the trades association and came to the conclusion that the question of whether a statutory monopoly should be allowed trade in areas outside the area of its statutory monopoly is a matter of public policy. In effect the Government permit the ESB to use the electricity billing system as a basis for marketing their retailing business. In my opinion the Government should withdraw this permission from the ESB.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. O'Malley)

This same concern was raised by a number of Deputies during the course of the Committee Stage debate on the Competition Bill on 12 June last.

The matter was raised under section 5 of the Competition Bill which prohibits the abuse of a dominant position in the market. The issue was relevant because, as Deputy Hogan rightly points out, the ESB are a monopoly supplier of electricity. The concept of monopoly as we know it is being replaced, in the new legislation, by the concept of a dominant position which should bring not only existing monopolies but also enterprises with strong positions in the market under the prohibition outlined in section 5 of that Bill.

I told the House last week that I have had discussions with the Minister for Energy who has responsibility for the ESB and for their policy and that he shares many of the concerns which I feel and the concerns which were raised here on 12 June and again tonight by Deputy Hogan. I hope that as a result he can discuss the future of the ESB's trading policy at retail level with them and see if some arrangement can be come to which is less unfair than the present system is, in my view at least.

The Dáil adjourned at 11.15 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 20 June 1991.